unlawfully storming the Capitol building?
— Pfhorrest

How do you define that? What law are you referring to? — Brett

any restricted building

Is it a restricted building? — Brett

Drop the act of being objective or truly interested in any way. Just jump right to the complete rationalization of what happened yesterday. Spare yourself the mental gymnastics.

I like that you show sympathy for how these people have been duped and manipulated, since that "war for hearts and minds" really is where the battle needs to be fought; but lots of people fighting for lots of bad causes have been duped and manipulated into thinking they are good causes, and that doesn't make their actions okay. — Pfhorrest

This cuts to one of the more important issues. In my own rage, I have to remind myself that these people really do believe the election was stolen, among other false things.

This level of brainwashing was taken to a new level by Trump, but as you know it's been going on for a long time -- in talk radio, in Fox News, and in print. Propaganda goes back much farther than the last 40 years, but it's especially pronounced during this era.

Combined with the simultaneous neoliberal assault from the business class and its results on the bottom 80% of the population, who turn for answers to these propaganda channels, and there's no wonder why 35%-45% of Americans believe the election was stolen, that Trump is a savior, that there's a deep state, etc.

At the core of all this, I think, is irrationality, in the sense of belief without evidence. This has always been around, but I can't help but think that religion, the education system, the fascination with sports (blind loyalty to the home team), jingoism, etc., all help contribute to making people ripe for a charlatan who's clever enough to take advantage. On a smaller scale it's called a cult, but on a larger scale it's called the Trumpism and the like.

Plenty of examples even on this thread. Pretty scary indeed. How do we counter all this?

Facial recognition firm claims antifa infiltrated Trump protesters who stormed Capitol
— NOS4A2

I heard antifa fucked your girlfriend — Maw

Lol.

Yeah and I heard all the "rioting and looting" was really Trump supporters in disguise.

Wouldn't doubt it.

I wouldn’t doubt it. — NOS4A2

What a shocker.

And also have the numbers, training, technology, equipment, weaponry, etc., that should far surpass anything we saw today. If used. For some reason, it wasn't. (Until much later.)

Nothing seems insane today, but I'd like to know something more concrete.



Yeah, they had a goal I suppose. But unlike burning a building spontaneously, given that they knew there were thousands of people in town and that this was certainly a possibility, you'd imagine the security would have been ramped up. Also, the small fact that it's the capital building and was in session. It's baffling.

Has anyone gathered anything factual about why the police and security allowed this to happen? How could they not have anticipated this? Where was the ass-kicking that we saw this summer from law enforcement?

Captures a lot of it. Especially the parts about neoliberalism and media ecosystems. Despite the latter coming from the guy who helped create the conditions for Trump by turning his back on his supporters. But regardless.

"History will rightly remember today’s violence at the Capitol, incited by a sitting president who has continued to baselessly lie about the outcome of a lawful election, as a moment of great dishonor and shame for our nation. But we’d be kidding ourselves if we treated it as a total surprise.
For two months now, a political party and its accompanying media ecosystem has too often been unwilling to tell their followers the truth — that this was not a particularly close election and that President-Elect Biden will be inaugurated on January 20. Their fantasy narrative has spiraled further and further from reality, and it builds upon years of sown resentments. Now we’re seeing the consequences, whipped up into a violent crescendo."

This is what comes of electing a sociopathic con man. What a fitting end: a disgraceful finale to the worst President in US history. To the millions who voted him into office, the 40% of Americans who supported him through four long years, and all the 70+ million people who voted for him: let this be your legacy. You’re responsible for this. You’re complicit in this. The damage done to the future of the country and the world over the last four years is unforgivable and unforgettable. We’ve become a global embarrassment.

But despite the best efforts to run this country into the ground and, through foreign policy, nuclear weapons policy, and climate change policy, the rest of the world, there were more rational people than not.

We now have the presidency, the house and the senate. The healing and rebuilding begins. We have much work to do, and have learned hard lessons — from 40 years of neoliberal policies, an economic crash, a leader who turned his back on us (Obama) as we were sleeping, and now four years of destruction and degeneration. We can’t repeat these mistakes again.

Heidegger’s version of this integration between feeling and thought is the equiprimordiality of Befindlichkeit ( attunement) and Understanding. — Joshs

Heidegger wrote:
“ In terms of fundamental ontology it can also be expressed by saying that all understanding is
essentially related to an affective self-finding which belongs to understanding itself. To be affectively self-finding is the formal structure of what we call mood, passion, affect, and the like, which are constitutive for all comportment toward beings, although they do not by themselves alone make such comportment possible but always only in one with understanding, which gives its light to each mood, each passion, each affect. Being itself, if indeed we understand it, must somehow or other be projected upon something. This does not mean that in this projection being must be objectively apprehended or interpreted and defined, conceptually comprehended, as something objectively apprehended. Being is projected upon something from which it becomes understandable, but in an unobjective way. It is understood as yet pre-
conceptually, without a logos; we therefore call it the pre-ontological understanding of being."(Basic Problems of
Phenomenology) — Joshs

Are you equating understanding and thought (in the sense Heidegger means, in the sense of "apprehension" and "disclosure" [aletheia])? Because otherwise I still fail to see how this relates to the above quotation of yours, to which I initially referred. What Heidegger is talking about here is the pre-ontological (pre-theoretical) understanding of being.

I don't think Joshs is misinterpreting Heidegger by claiming attunement and understanding are equiprimordial. — fdrake

In my translation it's "state of mind" -- but regardless, I don't see how this relates to "thinking and feeling" being integrated. What Heidegger is talking about here is one aspect of being-in-the-world, namely "being-in," of which understanding and state-of-mind are two constitutive "ways." This is on the way to re-interpreting it all once again as care (Sorge), and then care as temporality. All very interesting, but I still don't see how any of this is related to Joshs' post.

Heidegger’s version of this integration between feeling and thought is the equiprimordiality of Befindlichkeit ( attunement) and Understanding. — Joshs

This really doesn't make much sense I'm afraid.
— Xtrix

You mean in Heideggerese or in normal english? I think it makes good sense in Heideggerese. — fdrake

Not really. Where is the equiprimordiality of attunement and understanding to which Josh is referring -- in Being and Time or anywhere else? And how does it reduce to something like "feeling and thought" being integrated? Heidegger never talks like that. But what does it mean anyway? Is it simply saying that the mind/body and subject/object dichotomy is a construction of the West that we can go beyond? Alright, fine. Say that, then. Heidegger actually says that. The rest is just interpretation.

Incidentally, your quote of Heidegger seems unrelated to what you're saying. There he's in the middle of discussing the meaning of phenomenology.

No, one plays less than rationally all the time, in chess and in poker. Why? Because if you can tell, from experience, intuition, instinct, etc., that the other player is bad and in what ways he's bad, you can very easily take advantage of it by making moves that are sub-optimal, even bad. That's not playing like a computer would play, which is completely based on logic but has no clue about their opponents.

I would never use the scholar's mate against a good player, for instance. Against a child, yes. A computer, however, would not. To play a child the way a computer would is to be way too rational/logical/theoretical about the game.

You can most certainly be too rational in chess. And in poker, for that matter.

Heidegger’s version of this integration between feeling and thought is the equiprimordiality of Befindlichkeit ( attunement) and Understanding. — Joshs

This really doesn't make much sense I'm afraid.

This seems an interesting question. One way to approach the question could be to consider that on a global scale the average American consumer is an economic elite. How we regard our wealth in regards to the very many around the world who have so much less might provide some insight in to the mindset of the American top 1%. — Hippyhead

I imagine it would, but then again the top 1% (and remember, here I'm really meaning the top 0.1%) are very different than the average American consumer, who (like you mentioned) themselves are already quite privileged when compared to those in the rest of the world.

The people who control the companies that control the world are human beings as well, but with a unique circumstance: they're part of a club, a tradition. This tradition is one of true power in the sense of actual control over decisions on a national and international level. This tradition has many manifestations -- there have been ruling classes and elites for millennia -- but currently it appears as the corporation. This represents big business.

I think an example is helpful: Amazon. (You could take Facebook or Google or JP Morgan or Walt Disney or one of the fortune 500 companies, they all operate basically the same way.)

As a corporation they function and have attained their status in a system of rules and rights -- e.g., the idea of private property, ownership, corporation as legal "person," private profit, etc. -- and function within this system. They not only have control over people who work for them (amounting to millions of people), but the families, friends, and communities of which these people are connected. They own the major media, have the resources to both lobby ("influence") government for favorable legislation and bribe ("contribute to") politicians.

All of this is easy to see, and right on the surface. Takes a few minutes to think it through, and I think most Americans take it for granted.

So what's the point of me reviewing the obvious? Because if these companies essentially run the world, then the people running the companies is where we should be focused -- and are the topic of this thread. They are the owners of these companies, and make all the decisions about how to run the company. They appoint the administration, from the CEO on down the executive and managerial chain, and decide what to do with the profits. Specifically, they are the major shareholders.

And here a little knowledge about how a corporation operates is important, as is a little acquaintance with how stocks work. But otherwise it's fairly obvious what group makes the important decisions in a corporation. Perhaps there's 10-20 people on the board of directors, representing these major shareholders, and a handful of others. Add them up, maybe 50-100 people run any one of these Fortune 500 companies.

Add all the companies together, and you're looking at a number in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. That's not 1% of the global population. That's not even 1% of the American population. There's about 328 million people in the United States. 1% of that is 3.2 million. We're talking about tens of thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands tops, who control the world by controlling the corporations. 0.1% would take us to 320 thousand, which itself seems too high, but is at least closer to what one would expect -- at least in the United States.

When you start asking questions about THAT group, comparisons to average Americans just don't seem to fly.

I find it highly unlikely that you don’t know what they mean by those terms. — Brett

I have no idea, and neither do you. Who's "they"? Christians? Which ones? Protestants? Catholics? Which denomination? Maybe it's "god" as a kind of sky father -- fine, let's go with that one as a kind of "average." What about it? What reason is there to believe in it? What reason is there to believe in Wodin?

Who cares?

I am referring to a God that believers believe in. — Brett

What do you care what they say they believe in? Do you care what Hindus believe in? One calls this amorphous thing "God," the other calls it "Brahman," etc. Who knows what they mean by these terms?

That can be any God. — Brett

It can be any THING at all. So you're essentially saying "it can be any X." Some mean they believe in "love" or "nature" or the "unknowable"...and on and on. So what? Until we know what we're talking about, how can we possibly talk about it in any meaningful way? Maybe we believe, maybe we don't. Maybe we want to "replace" it with something, maybe we don't.

Again, this isn't even a coherent question. It's just a dead end.

Hindus really believe in Brahman and Shiva. Are these truths to you, or do they have no validity? If not, what have you replaced them with?

Okay. Let me be clearer. I was not referring to “truths” about God. I was referring to the idea that God exists exists for believers. — Brett

The Easter bunny exists for some believers. Ectoplasm exists for some believers. Who cares? The only reason you're asking this question is because we happen to be living in the Christian West, which takes the word "God" seriously, as if it's something everyone knows. I'm sure Hindus ask the same thing about non-believers in Hinduism.

This is a dead end.

I don't dismiss anything until you tell me what it is I'm supposedly denying.
— Xtrix

I’m presuming you’re denying the existence of God. — Brett

Right -- and "God" hasn't been explained yet. So you might as well be saying I am denying X. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not -- we can't know until you tell us what X is. You're talking as if X is the most well understood entity in the world -- it isn't. Which is what I've said from the beginning.

All this proves is that you've grown up believing in a word you don't understand. If you want to explain what it is, then do so -- otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. If God is nature, I believe in it. If God is love, I believe in it. If God is a supernatural humanoid sky father, I see no evidence to believe in that. If God is anything we can't understand, then I believe in that too. Etc. etc.

As I said, not to believers. — Brett

Apply the same argument to Santa Claus. Just as fatuous.

That’s your opinion, or truth. It doesn’t really matter which one it is, because you dismiss the reality of God’s existence. — Brett

I don't dismiss anything until you tell me what it is I'm supposedly denying.

This is merely your opinion of something you don’t believe exists. — Brett

I can't say if that "something" exists or not, since no one can tell us what it is.

Also, saying things like "merely your opinion" is so fatuous it's embarrassing. Here, I'll show you: that is merely your opinion that it's my opinion.

For all those avowed atheists out there; if God and the beliefs in God’s existence and actions have no validity, no claim to truth, then what truth have you replaced them with? — Brett

If Shiva and the beliefs in Shiva's existence and actions have no validity, what have you replaced it with?

God is a concept and a word, and a poorly defined one at that. You happened to be raised in a tradition that takes that word seriously. It grows out of the same human mind that creates all kinds of rules for behavior.

The verb “command” comes from the Latin manus dare: the commander lends his means of action (his “hand”) to others to do something he has thought. A ruler gives orders to his subordinates, but upon closer examination you will see that only very rare rulers in history — a Napoleon, a Stalin, a Reagan — were themselves the creators of the ideas they came up with. Early theorists of the modern state got it right when they invented the term “executive power”: the man of government is usually the executor of ideas that he did not conceive of, nor would he have the ability — or the time — to conceive. And those who conceived these ideas were the same ones who gave him the means to reach the government to realize them. Who are they? — Rafaella Leon

This is excellent.

The answer lies right on the surface, for all to see. It's the "winners" of the capitalist system, the 0.1% of super-wealth: the major shareholders (owners) of multinational corporations. The corporate sector rules the world today. It's really that simple. Who are these people, and what ideology do they have? Turns out it's mainly a neoliberal ideology -- which shouldn't be surprising, given that they wouldn't be in these positions without first having internalized certain values.

:yawn:

What Geo said to you isn't a straw man. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, it was. Try your spin on someone else.

I personally don't believe the profit motive is an essential feature of human nature. I do, however, believe that it's an essential feature of any modern, successful economy.

See? I don't even believe in the position that you're ascribing to me. — BitconnectCarlos

...

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways... — Xtrix

Give your head a shake, Xanax. Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

Finally someone speaking some sense. — BitconnectCarlos

Everything you're seeing isn't intended to be an argument. We're just making our position clear. Us expressing our position isn't a "straw man." If you agree that's great, if you don't we can talk about it. — BitconnectCarlos

Take a look at the quotes again, and then try harder to spin it. "Despite what some other commentators are saying..." This implies they're saying something other than the banality you mentioned, which you claim -- sounding like the intellectual giant that is Donald Trump -- the "leftists don't understand."

Each one is most certainly a straw man. Nothing -- not one of those claims -- are an accurate portrayal of what I'm saying or, as far as I can see, anyone else is saying either.

You make references to "the game" or "the system" but you're not too clear about it exactly. — BitconnectCarlos

I think I've been pretty clear as to what I mean by that, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt: I'm talking about our economic system, which is a state capitalist system. I use "game" as an analogy. Within the context of this system, one may very well come to believe that the "profit incentive" is an essential feature of human nature. But this system, and that very belief itself, has a history. It's been beaten into our heads for generations, until it finally shows up in the warped worldview you represent. I don't expect you to see how deeply sick this attitude is. But I also won't pretend to have a rational discussion based on such an assumption.

What straw man are you talking about? — BitconnectCarlos

I shouldn't even respond, but in case you really aren't sure:

My point is that just because a small group of people attain extreme wealth does not imply that it was ill-gotten.
— geospiza

"ill-gotten"? That depends on what you mean. Stop talking in the clouds and be specific. Is it right or wrong for companies to use tax havens and code loopholes to avoid paying taxes? It depends. You might argue it's perfectly legal and within the rules of the game. Is it right to automate jobs or outsource them to make more money? You could argue that's perfectly "natural," given that maximizing profit and market share is a core feature of our economic system.

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways... — Xtrix

Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

The top 1% did not make the rest of us poor. — geospiza

Your inability to admit it is an obvious sign of a deeper ideological agenda. — geospiza

It doesn't follow from this that some groups have been victimized by others. — geospiza

There is nothing morally superior about those who accumulate wealth — geospiza

Despite what some of the other commentators are saying, saving and particularly investment are absolutely essential to civilization. — BitconnectCarlos

Without profit on investment you are effectively losing money, even if you break even. I make this point frequently and leftists never quite seem to understand it. — BitconnectCarlos

And what a profound point it is. Too bad those "leftists" can't understand your very stable genius.

Why don't the two of you go have fun arguing against your straw men. When you're ready to join the real world, we'll be waiting.

What's interesting is that it's empirically on par with those examples, yet unquestioningly believed by millions of Americans as if it's a law of physics.

That's some impressive propaganda.

In most cases the best explanation is that some people have simply outproduced others.
— geospiza

Yeah I'm sure Elon Musk just works a few million percent harder and smarter than the average American. — Pfhorrest

Exactly. The "best explanation" doesn't apply there, I guess. Once again, no specifics, just vague, generalized, tired neoliberal slogans.

I appreciate that, thanks.



Some interesting stuff in there, thank you.

You're completely missing the point, and once again creating men of straw.

Go talk to scarecrows somewhere else.

Don't be a fool. There's evidence all around you of people being motivated to production by profit. Your inability to admit it is an obvious sign of a deeper ideological agenda. — geospiza

Ask yourself: is ANYONE really making the claim that the profit motive doesn't exist?

Again, try arguing against real people.

Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

Says every capitalist apologist in history. No evidence whatsoever, historical or otherwise, but nice to see you can repeat slogans.
— Xtrix

No evidence? :rofl: — geospiza

Yes: no evidence, historical or otherwise.

Just a childish assertion, as if "profit" is essential in human behavior. In fact it ignores the the core thrust of philosophy, the sciences, and the arts. Not to mention family, friendship, and community. I suppose in your eyes, all this operates on the basis of the "profit incentive."

What a pathological, nihilistic view of the world.

Habits are repetitive patterns of behavior. Some physicists refer to "natural laws" as merely "habits", in order to avoid the implications of a Law-giver, or of Teleology in nature. — Gnomon

I've heard of the latter, but I myself prefer to use "habit" in the former sense of human behavior. I have nothing against the latter use other than personal preference.

Human habits vary from simple personal Routines that have been found to facilitate activities without the necessity of conscious thought. In that case, conscious thought may have been used to find a sequence of events that works for behaviors that can be done almost without thinking. For example, I divide my home-bound Covid day at home into roughly one hour chunks devoted to particular tasks in a regular sequence. This routine only works at home, because at work my time is regulated more by the needs & goals of other people. — Gnomon

Right, this is more what I'm thinking. Thanks for the example.

Such habits are often done without awareness, and without conscious reasoning, — Gnomon

But this applies to "positive" habits as well. Smoking is a good example of a "bad" habit (depending on one's goals), but things like driving a car (perhaps more of a "skill") or brushing one's teeth before bed could also be considered "without conscious reasoning."

So, Aristotle's use of "habit" or "disposition" implies goal-directed teleology. — Gnomon

Yes that's my reading as well.

But the scientist's use of the same word is intended to signify the opposite meaning : random, meaningless, purposeless behaviors. — Gnomon

What scientists do you have in mind? Psychologists don't talk this way. It's not that habits are "purposeless," it's that they're mostly unconscious. We can turn a doorknob unconsciously, but the purpose is clear: open the door, to enter a room, to join a meet, etc. In fact, embedded in many of our daily habits are various purposes.



Thanks -- but can you elaborate a little further here?



I appreciate that.

BTW, does anyone know exactly what Greek word is getting translated as "habit"?

Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

:yawn:

Says every capitalist apologist in history. No evidence whatsoever, historical or otherwise, but nice to see you can repeat slogans.

By maintaining modest corporate and personal tax rates there is less incentive to lower production or to export earnings. Stop the obsession with tax rates, and focus instead on overall tax revenues. Realize that there is a point at which higher marginal tax rates for the wealthiest income earners will negatively correlate with total tax revenue.

The top 1% did not make the rest of us poor. Poverty is the default condition. — geospiza

No one said the 1% made the rest poor. "Poverty is the default condition" is meaningless. And none of this addresses the points I raised above. But that's expected.

If you want to build straw men and/or hold conversations with yourself, an online forum isn't for you. Go read more Milton Friedman.